preflight_project_creation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only, never creates anything, returns bounded JSON with a typed review/normalized draft/receipt, explains legacy v1 receipt semantics, and clarifies that it does not automatically answer the question. This is strong transparency beyond what structured fields would provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The key safety property is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, the later sentences are dense and somewhat ambiguous, especially 'Briefly offer the question as an optional improvement,' and the legacy v1 receipt detail adds complexity that is not clearly necessary for tool selection or invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers safety, return shape, the next-step sibling, and the autonomy boundary, which is substantial. But it omits parameter semantics and leaves the 'question' reference undefined, so an agent may still be uncertain about exactly what input is expected and what conversational behavior is being requested.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'name' or 'instructions' mean or how they affect the preflight review. It references 'project draft' generically but never maps the two parameters to concrete semantics, so an agent must infer their meaning from the tool name alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Review'), resource ('project draft'), and mode ('shadow/read-only'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from creation with 'this never creates it.' It also names create_project_from_preflight as the related follow-on, so an agent can tell this tool apart from its siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit routing guidance: 'proceed to create_project_from_preflight immediately when the user wants to start,' and sets a clear boundary with 'This tool never answers the question automatically.' This effectively tells the agent when to use this tool and when to switch to the creation sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.